Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikijob

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD#G4, WP:CSD#G11. Creator has a WP:COI, this was deleted and endorsed in April and he has no contributions other than documenting this, his website. Note that the site is blacklisted due to spamming. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikijob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable website Weisr123 (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• DeleteKeep Nice enough site, but it's not encyclopedic content. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of wiki techniques to run a jobs board. Interesting as an innovation in technology application. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Article cites independent, reliable sources. Those source authors thought this was notable enough to be worth some coverage. I do too. More sources would be nice, though. DickClarkMises (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What's notable about this site? Presumably that it uses a wiki to catch information from the community of users. That might just about be notable, as a new use of a particular technology in a notably new way. Except that it isn't a wiki! It appears to be a plain old threaded blog. User-created content, but not a wiki, hence nothing new.

The sources don't change this. It's perfectly WP:V, just not very WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Andy, I'm of the opinion that non-trivial third-party coverage in reliable sources is an indicator of notability. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It certainly isn't, unless that coverage chooses to indicate notability. V, but not N, unless the RS indicates N. AFAICS, these refs don't do this. They're merely reporting the existence of yet another jobs board, and jobs boards alone aren't notable unless there's something special about them. There's a vague suggestion that the idea of capturing community-based content creation is novel. Now AFAICS, this site is clearly not doing this in a way that lives up to the promise. Nor is it using "wiki" techniques. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Andy but you're entirely wrong. WikiJob quite clearly isn't a jobs board. The site does not advertise jobs at all - you've missed the point here. The site allows students to discuss what it's like to work at large graduate employers and give each other tips about interviews. Every page of the site is a wiki and I'm actually quite surprised you've missed this - each page is open to edits, apart from the messageboard, which is just a single part of the site. Apart from the messageboard, anyone can edit anything - this site is completely wiki, although the design has been altered from the original mediawiki style. The site is novel because there is no where else on line that student job seekers can discuss the information available on WikiJob. Wikipedia allows similar websites such as "rollonfriday" and "thestudentroom" and these sites are certainly not notable, or even wiki based. Please re-assess WikiJob. 86.0.221.59 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, looked again, saw the wiki. Pages I'd initially looked at (the couple that happen to be my own clients) just didn't have any content loaded yet. Sorry! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reassessing Andy. I appreciate it :) 86.0.221.59 (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• weak keep seems to have sufficient independent reliable sources, as per notability policy. It seems to me that it's the fact it has been covered by independent, reliable sources that indicates notability, rather than how revolutionary it is. The website does seem to be fairly distinctive, in any case. Silverfish (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This article was Deleted back in April, then brought to Deletion Review where the deletion was upheld. Article creator appeared to have conflict of interest and was spamming the link back then. Edward321 (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • DRV primarily reviews process, not the meat of notability, etc. Besides, consensus can change. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.